Bill Ayers: Yeah, I wrote “Dreams from My Father”

posted at 9:08 pm on March 28, 2011 by Allahpundit

Via the American Thinker. I think John Hawkins is spot on in detecting the sarcasm here, but if you’re inclined to believe that Ayers is The One’s ghostwriter, you’re bound to detect a “deeper truth” in his tone. In fact, Ayers has been baiting people with this same corny line about splitting the royalties for ages. Back in October 2009, a conservative blogger spotted him in Reagan Airport and approached him. As soon as she mentioned that she was conservative, he offered, unprompted, that he had written the book, that Michelle Obama had put him up to it, and, yes, that he’d be happy to split the royalties with the blogger if she could prove it. When she countered that she thought he had at least edited it, he egged her on by insisting that no, he had written the darned thing. I think he enjoys mocking people who push this idea and enjoys it doubly when they can’t detect the mockery. In fact, I’d bet that this is his stock response anytime the book is mentioned in his presence — insisting that he wrote it to see if the listener laughs and then toying with them if they seem credulous. But as I say, your mileage may vary.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Comments

Obama is playing you like fools because you’re simply less intelligent, and you’re either too prejudiced or not self-aware enough (or both) to realize it.
underceij on March 28, 2011 at 9:33 PM

Well, if being ‘less intelligent’ means not having the cunning and smarts to be a con man, than yeah, I admit it, he’s waay smarter. I’m also clearly not smart enough to get what “prejudice” has to do with the teleprompter presidency.

Now what *I* read out of that was that Sharke was asking a black man (or what he believed to be a black man) whether he believes that it is beneficial to the poster *as a black man* to continue on with the “any criticism is racism” meme.

Which you seem to be gleefully abetting.

Or you just can’t catch the point that Sharke was attempting to make.

So either way you are a race-baiter who hides behind the skirts of the race card or just an idiot.

And just to support my choice of you being an idiot, it was underceij who brought up “the race card” first.

crr6, I most certainly do not care about the color of people’s skin in the judgments that I make of them. However, it cannot escape unnoticed that 96% of African Americans voted for Obama and only an idiot would dismiss the notion that there was a huge racial motive among blacks in voting for the first black (or at least half black) President of the United States.

It’s not unfair to assume that most black Americans have a lot of emotion invested in the fortunes of the first black American President. Therefore, it’s not unreasonable to refer to this aspect in responding to a charge of racism leveled at us by someone who it seems cannot bring himself to admit that our problem with Obama is non-racial.

I note you seem to have no problem with him bringing up race in the first place, nor his racist assumption that we’re white, nor his bigoted assumption that all white conservatives are racist. How very telling.

I think you do, because that link doesn’t back up what you said. Your claim was:

when obama was president of the Harvard Law Review he left with the dubious distinction of having been the only president of that review’s history who never bothered to write an article himself.

The link just talks about the case note he published, and how he didn’t write a full article while on Law Review. It doesn’t say he was the only president in the history of Harvard Law Review not to publish an article.

So do you have a link backing up your claim, or are you going to admit you’re lying?

For fans of Underground the Ape poem, Pop is the one that really deserves scrutiny. Cashill has his theories, which may or may not be true. I’ll keep it simple: If Barry wrote that weird, disgusting poem, I am not comfortable with its author being in the White House. Obama. Abe Lincoln. Sorry, no comparison Barry.

So do you have a link backing up your claim, or are you going to admit you’re lying?

crr6 on March 28, 2011 at 11:11 PM

You are seriously uninformed. Obama’s own 2008 campaign denied he ever published anything as president of the Harvard Law Review.
One thing Obama did not do while with the review was publish any of his own work. Campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt said Obama didn’t write any articles for the Review, though his two semesters at the helm did produce a wide range of edited case analyses and unsigned “notes” from Harvard students

So what’s your argument that Obama wrote his two books himself? That another president of the HLR was also a slacker?

You are seriously uninformed. Obama’s own 2008 campaign denied he ever published anything as president of the Harvard Law Review.

keep the change on March 28, 2011 at 11:25 PM

Well you either can’t read or you’re being purposefully obtuse.

I know Obama didn’t publish an article while he was on law review, but do you have a link backing up your original claim that he was the first President in the history of the Harvard Law Review not to publish an article?

Because that is, in fact, what you claimed:

Remember, when obama was president of the Harvard Law Review he left with the dubious distinction of having been the only president of that review’s history who never bothered to write an article himself. If he couldn’t even put pen to paper to write an article, he sure as hell didn’t write two full books. That takes nose-to-the-grindstone character he doesn’t have. Ayres, now in obama’s shadow after being a mentor of sorts, is reminding us of that.

I know Obama didn’t publish an article while he was on law review, but do you have a link backing up your original claim that he was the first President in the history of the Harvard Law Review not to publish an article?

But my question was, do you have a credible source for the claim that Obama was the first ever Pres. of Harvard Law Review not to publish an article? That’s a pretty sweeping claim. There should be a link somewhere for that, right?

crr6 on March 28, 2011 at 11:01 PM

Since I never made that claim you can ask all you want but don’t expect an answer. And since you agree he did publish one article anonymously then your question is pointless. Get a grip and go watch tv or make some popcorn.

You are seriously uninformed. Obama’s own 2008 campaign denied he ever published anything as president of the Harvard Law Review.

keep the change on March 28, 2011 at 11:25 PM

Well you either can’t read or you’re being purposefully obtuse.

I know Obama didn’t publish an article while he was on law review, but do you have a link backing up your original claim that he was the first President in the history of the Harvard Law Review not to publish an article?

Now that you’ve agreed that he didn’t publish anything while on the law review, it’s time to pick some nits and argue about whether he’s the first president of the LR or not that hasn’t published. Who cares? The fact still remains he did nothing.

Let me play your game. Do you have any evidence that other presidents didn’t publish any articles? I don’t know of any. Perhaps you do? Or are you just lying? The fact is Obama didn’t publish. So why should anyone believe he wrote two whole books on his own.

Now that you’ve agreed that he didn’t publish anything while on the law review, it’s time to pick some nits and argue about whether he’s the first president of the LR or not that hasn’t published. Who cares? The fact still remains he did nothing.

Seriously? The President of a law review’s main function isn’t to publish their own work; it’s to edit articles and choose which submissions are chosen for publication.

And I’m not nitpicking. The whole reason you guys bring up the fact that he didn’t publish is to imply that there was something extraordinary or rare about it, i.e. you’re arguing that even though Obama managed to become President of the Harvard Law Review, he was an especially incompetent President because he didn’t publish. Pointing out that other President’s didn’t publish either undermines that point.

As president of the Harvard Law Review and a law professor in Chicago, Senator Barack Obama refined his legal thinking, but left a scant paper trail. His name doesn’t appear on any legal scholarship.

But an unsigned — and previously unattributed — 1990 article unearthed by Politico offers a glimpse at Obama’s views on abortion policy and the law during his student days, and provides a rare addition to his body of work.

The six-page summary, tucked into the third volume of the year’s Harvard Law Review, considers the charged, if peripheral, question of whether fetuses should be able to file lawsuits against their mothers. Obama’s answer, like most courts’: No. He wrote approvingly of an Illinois Supreme Court ruling that the unborn cannot sue their mothers for negligence, and he suggested that allowing fetuses to sue would violate the mother’s rights and could, perversely, cause her to take more risks with her pregnancy.[snip]

But Obama has never mentioned his law review piece, a demurral that’s part of his campaign’s broader pattern of rarely volunteering information or documents about the candidate, even when relatively innocuous. When Politico reporters working on a story about Obama’s law review presidency earlier this year asked if he had written for the review, a spokesman responded accurately – but narrowly – that “as the president of the Law Review, Obama didn’t write articles, he edited and reviewed them.”

How exactly does one competently “edit” others work (in order to render said work worthy of publication) when one hasn’t actually gone to the trouble of authoring publishable work themselves? Hmmmmm, that’s a mystery. Anyone can cite check – writing a article worthy of publication (esp. the first AA president of the HLR) is a whole different story. But then, you knew that already, right?

Let me play your game. Do you have any evidence that other presidents didn’t publish any articles? I don’t know of any. Perhaps you do? Or are you just lying? The fact is Obama didn’t publish. So why should anyone believe he wrote two whole books on his own.

keep the change on March 28, 2011 at 11:36 PM

Well I guess this is about as close as I’m going to get to you admitting you just made it up.

I suggest you take the time to look into some of the other things you parrot from day to day as well. You might find a lot of your baseline assumptions are factually incorrect.

You have free access to West (and maybe Lexis too) – surely it wouldn’t hard to find in order to refute.

volnation on March 28, 2011 at 11:34 PM

You’re effectively asking me to prove a negative. I’d have to look up every President in Harvard Law Review history, then search each name to see whether they published something, then check to make sure that the publication was in their 3L year (when they were President).

Anyway, keep the change made the original claim and I just asked for a simple link backing it up because it smelled like bullsh*t. Turns out I was right.

For fans of Underground the Ape poem, Pop is the one that really deserves scrutiny. Cashill has his theories, which may or may not be true. I’ll keep it simple: If Barry wrote that weird, disgusting poem, I am not comfortable with its author being in the White House. Obama. Abe Lincoln. Sorry, no comparison Barry.

Buy Danish on March 28, 2011 at 11:18 PM

That’s the one that leads some to suggest that Frank Marshall Davis molested Barry. Davis wrote a lurid book about sex with children, -he’s a seriously creepy man, and why the Bamster’s grandparents would leave him in the care of Davis is a question for which we have no answer.

You’re effectively asking me to prove a negative. I’d have to look up every President in Harvard Law Review history, then search each name to see whether they published something, then check to make sure that the publication was in their 3L year (when they were President).

Anyway, keep the change made the original claim and I just asked for a simple link backing it up because it smelled like bullsh*t. Turns out I was right.

crr6 on March 28, 2011 at 11:47 PM

Holy smokes, you sure that you’re an Ivy? I’m not asking that you do anything more than use those ten digits to manipulate your keyboard. Narrow the search terms to “Barack H. Obama” and you’ll have your answer. Was he published or not?

Record Retrospective: Obama on affirmative action
I’d also like to add one personal note, in response to the letter from Mr. Jim Chen which was published in the October 26 issue of the RECORD, and which articulated broad objections to the Review’s general affirmative action policy. I respect Mr. Chen’s personal concern over the possible stigmatizing effects of affirmative action, and do not question the depth or sincerity of his feelings. I must say, however, that as someone who has undoubtedly benefited from affirmative action programs during my academic career, and as someone who may have benefited from the Law Review’s affirmative action policy when I was selected to join the Review last year, I have not personally felt stigmatized either within the broader law school community or as a staff member of the Review. Indeed, my election last year as President of the Review would seem to indicate that at least among Review staff, and hopefully for the majority of professors at Harvard, affirmative action in no way tarnishes the accomplishments of those who are members of historically underrepresented groups.http://www.hlrecord.org/2.4475/record-retrospective-obama-on-affirmative-action-1.577511?pagereq=1

How exactly does one competently “edit” others work (in order to render said work worthy of publication) when one hasn’t actually gone to the trouble of authoring publishable work themselves? Hmmmmm, that’s a mystery.

Not really. Staff editors on law journals at law schools around the country do it every day. I did it last week.

Oddly enough, I’ve found that most professors who submit stuff for publication have a good general theory or idea (that’s why they get published), but they half-a** the actual writing. They expect staff editors to do a lot of editing.

You’re effectively asking me to prove a negative. I’d have to look up every President in Harvard Law Review history, then search each name to see whether they published something, then check to make sure that the publication was in their 3L year (when they were President).

So if you can’t be bothered to back up your claim, why should I be bothered to do the same to back up mine? I don’t have the time, nor resources, to find the articles I read in the last three years that mention that Obama was the only president not to have published. If that is what you are asking me, then pity, I don’t bookmark every bit of trivia on Obama so that I can use it later. Not to mention the media is quite friendly to him, so they don’t help much by their lack of interest in this issue.

Incidentally, for a guy who never published when he had the golden opportunity to, where oh where did he find the time and focus to write two whole books?

There is a reason why writers are used to write biographies. Except in Obama’s case, he is too proud to admit he used them.

Cmon, crr. Since this topic seems to interest you so much,
Good Solid B-Plus on March 28, 2011 at 11:37 PM

Yeah I know it’s sort of weird I get fixated on this sort of thing. It’s just that it’s something I have a pretty good working knowledge of, and because of that I know firsthand that 99% of the stuff you guys say about Obama and HLS is complete bs.

Most of the smears posters here say about him are like that (birther stuff, law license). They’re facially appealing, but anyone with a somewhat advanced knowledge of the topic will be able to point out the little factoids you guys spew are either misleading or patently false. You just rely on general ignorance and hope this stuff will stick. It’s frustrating, to say the least.

So what you are saying is that you found another slacker like Obama? The review has been ongoing for the last 124 years. According to those who knew him, Obama was an incompetent president. A guy who didn’t care for work. Which speaks to my point that it is unlikely he wrote one, much less two, books.

Carol Platt Liebau was first female managing editor of the Harvard Law Review;

It reminds me a little bit of my experience with him when he was president of the Harvard Law Review. You know, I hesitated to say a lot about this during the campaign because I really thought maybe it wasn’t fair. That maybe, finally, when he got to be President, this would be a job big enough to engage and hold Barack Obama’s sustained interest, because really, is there a bigger job out here?

[...]

[W]hen he was at the HLR you did get a very distinct sense that he was the kind of guy who much more interested in being the president of the Review, than he was in doing anything as president of the Review.

A lot of the time he quote/unquote “worked from home”, which was sort of a shorthand – and people would say it sort of wryly – shorthand for not really doing much. He just wasn’t around. Most of the day to day work was carried out by the managing editor of the Review, my predecessor, a great guy called Tom Pirelli whose actually going to be one of the assistant attorney generals now.

He’s the one who did most of the day to day work. Barack Obama was nowhere to be seen. Occasionally he would drop in he would talk to people, and then he’d leave again as though his very arrival had been a benediction in and of itself, but not very much got done.

So, you know, you see that and you think, gosh, maybe that’s the way the guy operates, hut then you figure ok, obviously he always had his eye on bigger and better things.

BHO wasn’t a “staff editor” – he was a President of the HLR. Are you suggesting that his position was of no greater import than that of a glorified proofreader? Like I said, anyone can cite check and make suggestions (but you know that since you did it just last week) but the task of authoring work that is deemed publishable by one’s peers is a completely different ball game. But then again, as a staff editor, you know that as well. We should expect your article to be published, when?

Obama’s position as President of the HLR may well have entailed editing other’s work. But Obama’s “brand” is built on the notion that he’s some kind of brilliant legal savant because he attended Harvard and was the “first” AA HLR President. Whether or not he was published is really not that important, other than to say that if he really was the brilliant man that some suggest, then whether he was (or was not) published wouldn’t be being discussed, because he would have been. The fact is that he wasn’t (either during or after law school) goes against the “brand” that has been so carefully constructed by those around him.

I don’t doubt that Obama is a very intelligent man, but what I would question is how a man who is purported to possess such a superior intellect and vast legal acumen, couldn’t muster ONE publishable work either in law school or anytime thereafter.

Well it’s the first one I looked up. I could go on, but frankly I’d rather get my Corporations reading done.

According to those who knew him, Obama was an incompetent president. A guy who didn’t care for work. Which speaks to my point that it is unlikely he wrote one, much less two, books.

keep the change on March 29, 2011 at 12:23 AM

Most of the people interviewed here seem to think he was pretty competent.

I don’t doubt that Obama is a very intelligent man, but what I would question is how a man who is purported to possess such a superior intellect and vast legal acumen, couldn’t muster ONE publishable work either in law school or anytime thereafter.

volnation on March 29, 2011 at 12:24 AM

You’re assuming he tried and failed. A lot of people don’t even bother. Frankly it’s really only worthwhile if you want to clerk in a prestigious circuit or get into academia.

Not to”pick a nit” but does it drive anyone else crazy when BHO is referred to as a law professor…he was never a law professor..he was a lecturer…and for what I have read re that..he did not teach constitutional law.hells bells..he hates the Constitution!!! he mostly blabbed about himself and probably his..rules for radicals..theory…several of his students said they did not learn much…I would bet you will never find those students today…

Ayers is just a nasty piece of work and has worked hard at it for a long time. The Inferno awaits him and Alinsky`s kudos to Satan as the “first radical” will not save these vile progressive folk.

And yeah, I have the edition with that Lucifer dedication in it and I have read the poorly written piece of trash.

Better to know the enemy.

Anyway, I am wondering why I had to BUY the book when these libs are so concerned about me. Shouldn`t they just give it away? No, they, like Soros, use capitalism to make money and gain power and then don`t want to allow others the same chance.

I love stories like this because it forces white conservatives to choose between their reptilian,
Obama-hating instincts, and common sense. It’s just like the birth certificate. A good percentage
of you just can’t help yourselves and are simply willing to look stupid, because the price of giving
Obama credit for anything is just too high. So you get stuff like this:

I’ve read the case for Ayers having written Obama’s book and I have to say, I was impressed.
It is pretty strong. I think the sarcasm is a smoke bomb.

Others of you just split the difference and say something like, “Ayers at least helped Obama edit
it”, or “I’m not saying he’s not a citizen, but where is the birth certificate?”

Obama is playing you like fools because you’re simply less intelligent, and you’re either too
prejudiced or not self-aware enough (or both) to realize it.

underceij on March 28, 2011 at 9:33 PM

As much as you “love” stories like this, it can’t be as deep as the love people like me have watching racially-obsessed, gullible, cynical fools like you who aren’t smart/patient enough to seriously attempt to vet your own premises before attacking those who don’t agree with you, because your love isn’t based upon reality; rather, it’s based upon your emotional, unacknowledged prejudices.

Is all hatred of 0bamessiah based upon his race? Is all hatred of 0bamessiah irrational? If you are honest enough to say “no”, which would be the true answer to those questions, for the sake of decency you’d be faced with having to altering your angle, and you don’t want to do that because it would be too much work for a lazy sod like you.

Ayers is a selfishly manipulative bad guy. He should have been executed for his crimes. So, why bother spending energy dissecting what game he is playing with his statements about that unintentionally funny work of fiction? He’s still just a worthless liar in the end. 0bamessiah, a narcissistic, dishonest, passive-aggressive, shamelessly hypocritical coward with poor leadership abilities who has lied about his relationship with this moron Ayers, is a guy whose intelligence you revere? ROFL you’re a joke(r).

I don’t doubt that Obama is a very intelligent man, but what I would question is how a man who is purported to possess such a superior intellect and vast legal acumen, couldn’t muster ONE publishable work either in law school or anytime thereafter.

volnation on March 29, 2011 at 12:24 AM

What talent has 0bemessiah shown us besides an ability to exploit those who aren’t proficient at critical thinking?

I see crr6′s new “argument” is that sure, Obama didn’t actually publish anything, but hey, other presidents didn’t either.

Her previous argument was “he wrote a note” even though there is nothing publushed with his name attached to it.

And, now his argument is “so what, other presidents didn’t publish either”.

Of course, that is totally dishonest because during the campaign and thereafter, when we pointed out that a) obama has done nothing to prove his “brilliance” as attested to by those like crr6 and b) he has accomplished nothing in life – no experience at anything (he never actaully really practiced law, never held a real job, never sponsored or fought for any legislation as a state legislator, never sponsored or fought for anything as a U.S. Senator, no executive experience, no writings demonstrating any deeper thought about major issues, nothing to signify anything at all of character or otherwise) – when we pointed those things out, we were told “of course he’s brilliant – he was the editor of the Harvard Law Review and wrote articles for it”. Of course, the fact that he was elected onto the law review (i.e., he did not grade on and did not write on) and he was elected editor (in other words, he got on law review through popularity and became editor through popularity) did not dissaude such claims of supposed brilliance.

then when we asked for proof of published works, we were told “nobody at harvard published under their name”. Even though this too is untrue.

And we are constantly told of his brilliance because he attended Harvard Law and because he graduated Summa. Of course, I’m pretty sure that everyone at Harvard Law graduates Summa. We have yet to see his grades from there or from his undergrad. Nor his LSAT score. Which indicates that he was a mediocre undergrad student with a mediocre LSAT score, but affirmative action got him into Harvard. So, again, there goes the “brilliance argument”.

Not to mention the fact that George W. Bush was never considered brilliant even though he attended Yale, had better grades than John Kerry, and had his MBA.

so again, the only justification for Obama to be president was his brilliance, and the only evidence of said brilliance was his law review status and alleged writings.

But now the bar has been lowered to “other presidents didn’t publish either”. Of course, that ignores that those other presidents at least did something before becoming president and had some life experience.

but, I suppose when you are unwilling to ever admit a mistake, you will lie and dissemble to the death bed.

Aw, come on Monkeytoe, you’re being unfair. One article he (allegedly, who knows for sure) wrote for the Sundial has been unearthed. As Andy McCarthy notes:

…The New York Times unearthed a 1983 article called, “Breaking the War Mentality,” that Columbia student Barack Obama wrote for a campus newspaper. The article shows that Obama dreaded American “militarism” and its “military-industrial interests,” while effusing enthusiasm for the dangerously delusional nuclear-freeze movement.

Moreover, while indicating a preference for the political wisdom of reggae singer Peter Tosh over Ronald Reagan or Scoop Jackson, Obama bewailed the “narrow focus” of anti-militarism activists, worrying that they were targeting the “symptoms” rather than the real “disease,” namely, America’s underlying economic and political injustice.

Dude, one can view Barry’s original bong-o, er, boffo journalism at the link…

By crr6′s research, it appears – on it’s face – that Obama set the precedent, since 89-90 (cited) is well after Oprompta was President of HLR. After all, the assertion was he was the FIRST. I suggest you narrow your parameters to BEFORE The Won, showing that someone WELL AFTER him didn’t publish proves nothing.

And the fact that he couldn’t write a grocery list coherrently STILL stands.

“split the royalties”? So he admits he’s getting royalties from this book?

I personally think he wrote it based on Cashill’s evidence and Ayers’ smug taunting does nothing to dissuade me. I think Ayers also wants everyone to know that HE wrote Dreams but certainly not that “political hack” book Audacity. He plays coy but he wants you to know he didn’t write that POS.

He does not admit he’s currently getting royalties. He jokes that if the questioner could prove he wrote the book they could split the royalties. I do think that if Bill “Small C” Communist Ayers had any idea that this book would be worth tens of millions of dollars he would have made different arrangements with Barack.

He does not admit he’s currently getting royalties. He jokes that if the questioner could prove he wrote the book they could split the royalties. I do think that if Bill “Small C” Communist Ayers had any idea that this book would be worth tens of millions of dollars he would have made different arrangements with Barack.

Buy Danish on March 29, 2011 at 10:17 AM

He flatly says he’s getting royalties. Whether he is or not, who knows. He says it in a baiting, joking manner, but his words are right there. A lot of truth is spoken in jest, just like his whole foray into who wrote what. Hiding in plain sight, as someone said upthread.

I think what’s most important to him is to distance himself from Audacity of Hope. He does not want anyone speculating he wrote it, he finds it inferior to his literary abilities. His ego won’t allow him to keep completely silent on this.

I see crr6′s new “argument” is that sure, Obama didn’t actually publish anything, but hey, other presidents didn’t either.

Her previous argument was “he wrote a note” even though there is nothing publushed with his name attached to it.

And, now his argument is “so what, other presidents didn’t publish either”.

Of course, that is totally dishonest because during the campaign and thereafter, when we pointed out that a) obama has done nothing to prove his “brilliance” as attested to by those like crr6 and b) he has accomplished nothing in life – no experience at anything (he never actaully really practiced law, never held a real job, never sponsored or fought for any legislation as a state legislator, never sponsored or fought for anything as a U.S. Senator, no executive experience, no writings demonstrating any deeper thought about major issues, nothing to signify anything at all of character or otherwise) – when we pointed those things out, we were told “of course he’s brilliant – he was the editor of the Harvard Law Review and wrote articles for it”. Of course, the fact that he was elected onto the law review (i.e., he did not grade on and did not write on) and he was elected editor (in other words, he got on law review through popularity and became editor through popularity) did not dissaude such claims of supposed brilliance.

then when we asked for proof of published works, we were told “nobody at harvard published under their name”. Even though this too is untrue.

And we are constantly told of his brilliance because he attended Harvard Law and because he graduated Summa. Of course, I’m pretty sure that everyone at Harvard Law graduates Summa. We have yet to see his grades from there or from his undergrad. Nor his LSAT score. Which indicates that he was a mediocre undergrad student with a mediocre LSAT score, but affirmative action got him into Harvard. So, again, there goes the “brilliance argument”.

Not to mention the fact that George W. Bush was never considered brilliant even though he attended Yale, had better grades than John Kerry, and had his MBA.

so again, the only justification for Obama to be president was his brilliance, and the only evidence of said brilliance was his law review status and alleged writings.

But now the bar has been lowered to “other presidents didn’t publish either”. Of course, that ignores that those other presidents at least did something before becoming president and had some life experience.

but, I suppose when you are unwilling to ever admit a mistake, you will lie and dissemble to the death bed.

Monkeytoe on March 29, 2011 at 7:59 AM

Yeah I know it’s sort of weird I get fixated on this sort of thing. It’s just that it’s something I have a pretty good working knowledge of, and because of that I know firsthand that 99% of the stuff you guys say about Obama and HLS is complete bs.

Most of the smears posters here say about him are like that (birther stuff, law license). They’re facially appealing, but anyone with a somewhat advanced knowledge of the topic will be able to point out the little factoids you guys spew are either misleading or patently false. You just rely on general ignorance and hope this stuff will stick. It’s frustrating, to say the least.

crr6 on March 29, 2011 at 12:12 AM

This is exactly what I’m talking about. Pretty much everything Monkeytoe just said is factually incorrect. He’s either stupid or he’s lying.

By crr6′s research, it appears – on it’s face – that Obama set the precedent, since 89-90 (cited) is well after Oprompta was President of HLR.After all, the assertion was he was the FIRST. I suggest you narrow your parameters to BEFORE The Won, showing that someone WELL AFTER him didn’t publish proves nothing.

PJ Emeritus on March 29, 2011 at 9:50 AM

No dumb***, that’s the year before Obama was elected Pres. of HLR. You can now join Monkeytoe in the dunce corner.

Little Bammie’s grades and degrees awarded cannot be fairly compared across the legal profession because of the corrosive nature of double-A. Every job, every grade, every degree and every distinction in little Bammie’s life bears the mark of double-A.

To be fair, he did not ask for the advantages of double-A, but as a politician today he surely supports the continuation of the program. Without the program, what would be his position in life?

Not to”pick a nit” but does it drive anyone else crazy when BHO is referred to as a law professor…he was never a law professor..he was a lecturer…and for what I have read re that..he did not teach constitutional law.hells bells..he hates the Constitution!!! he mostly blabbed about himself and probably his..rules for radicals..theory…several of his students said they did not learn much…I would bet you will never find those students today…

Xango Annie on March 29, 2011 at 1:38 AM

Yep, extremely irritating. He is correctly referred to as a ‘visiting lecturer’ re his time at Chicago Law, and he taught community organizing, aka Alinsky.

From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School’s Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.

He does not say he’s getting royalties! He says that if the questioner he can prove that he wrote the book he would share (future) royalties with him.

Buy Danish on March 29, 2011 at 11:33 AM

*sigh*. I think we’re splitting hairs here, and you’re making the assumption with your parenthetical statement that the royalties will come in the future. It doesn’t matter, we’re interpreting his statement differently. The overarching point is that he is an audacious, arrogant, egomaniac

One might also note that, while it is customary (though not ironclad) for the president of the HLR to be offered a clerkship with a SCOTUS Justice – obama was not.
Indeed, he was not offered a clerkship with any justice, judge or magistrate – federal, state or local.

No, what’s frustrating is that you lurk in these topics to defend Obama’s pre-Presidency record because you don’t have the policy chops or the political acumen to actually defend his job performance as CinC.

No, what’s frustrating is that you lurk in these topics to defend Obama’s pre-Presidency record because you don’t have the policy chops or the political acumen to actually defend his job performance as CinC.

No, what’s frustrating is that you lurk in these topics to defend Obama’s pre-Presidency record because you don’t have the policy chops or the political acumen to actually defend his job performance as CinC.

Good Solid B-Plus on March 29, 2011 at 12:18 PM

In all serioussness….do the lies and misrepresentations people have been saying here bother you at all? I mean, quite a bit of the criticisms of Obama are flat-out factually incorrect. Do you ever bother to correct people? If not, why not?

I hated it when libs would say dumb stuff about Bush. it undermined the serious critiques.

By the way, there’s another Bammie effect we should celebrate, and that’s the reevaluation of Ivy League credentials. Employers will now look at a degree from Hahvahd and other elite schools with a little more cynicism, especially in Law, as they should.

They will think of Bammie, and think that perhaps this candidate skated through life like the Bamster. That’s terrible for those that really did the work and deserved their degree, but that’s the caustic nature of double-A.

In all serioussness….do the lies and misrepresentations people have been saying here bother you at all? I mean, quite a bit of the criticisms of Obama are flat-out factually incorrect. Do you ever bother to correct people? If not, why not?

I hated it when libs would say dumb stuff about Bush. it undermined the serious critiques.

crr6 on March 29, 2011 at 12:29 PM

If it’s a lie about something that happened from January 2009 to today, then yes, it would bother me. As far as Obama’s career in academia, at the Law Review, his BC, etc.? None of that interests me in the least. If other HA posters want to say that Obama actually built a robot to attend classes and spent his law school tenure fighting crime and doing blow, so be it.

Also, I’m not sure how to consider a statement about “lies and misrepresentations” from someone who calls 43% a “small minority.”